Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 39

How do I find out if a license tag is legitimate?

If an image has been tagged as PD, is there a way of checking whether this is correct? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: There should be a plausible reason for such a tag on the file description page. You can ask the person who placed the tag or the uploader, or you can start a COM:DR.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Depends on the claimed rationale for PD.

• If claimed PD for being old, one can check whether it is really/likely as old as required by the copyright laws of the respective country of origin.
• If claimed PD as "work by US gov" one should check at the given source whether this is really true (US gov websites also publish "not US-gov" works).
• If claimed as "PD-self" one needs to check whether its truely own work by the uploader.

--Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no wish to have the file deleted, but the license has been questioned in a featured article review on Wikipedia. The file is File:ROV working on a subsea structure.jpg and the uploader to Wikipedia has not edited for several years and appears to have vanished. This is unfortunate, as it is a really good image for my purpose. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

That is old enough to qualify for COM:GOF, when permission-by-claim was not required to have a COM:OTRS email to verify it. Comes down to if you think the original uploader was lying, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no reason to assume the original uploader was lying. Thanks, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I have tagged as grandfathered, if this is not appropriate, please advise. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate license?

I have been told that [[File:Pavillon_rouge_avec_une_diagonale_blanche.svg]] is too simple to warrant copyright protection. Should I change the tag to CC0? (I did not create or upload the file) · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I see this has been done at a similar file, so have followed precedent. Consider this resolved unless there is a problem. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate Licence and data?

I uploaded a my photo Vergine e Bambino con san Giuseppe, il beato Amato e san Carlo Borromeo (Cialdieri), made by myself to a painting of the XXVII century. Have I chosen the right licence declaration? Which date do I have to choose? The moment I've taken the photo (last Saturday), or when the painting has been concluded (1621 c.a.)? Who is the ower? Myself (the author of the photo) or the painter (Girolamo Cialdieri, the author of the painting)? --Skyfall (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Skyfall: Hi,

What is important here is the painting. So the author is the painter, and the date should be when it was painted. I fixed the license for you. Additionally, you can mention that you are the photographer. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Skyfall (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO

Is ist possible to upload pictures licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO? --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes; the template is called {{cc-by-sa-3.0-igo}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Creative commons section

If I might make a suggestion for this page, as an editor I would find it a lot easier to digest the information about Creative Commons licensing if it were presented in a more visual, iconographic way. I find the explanation on the Upload work from Flickr tool really clear, as it requires less ploughing through text. If it could be expanded/adapted for this page, it would help editors greatly. Cnbrb (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cnbrb: Agreed! As an irregularly-active editor, I don't have all the CC licenses memorized. Which licenses are (or are not) allowed should be clearly displayed here on this official policy page so I and others don't have to spend 5 minutes digging to figure out if, for example, Attribution-NoDerivs is allowable. --NoGhost (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@NoGhost: No, Attribution-NoDerivs is NOT allowed here. All allowed licenses must explicitly allow derivatives and commercial use.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Haha, yes I figured that out for the time-being. My point is that the next time I might want to upload something, perhaps a month or more from now, I won't remember this and will have to spend yet another 5 minutes digging through unhelpful sections to find what should be clear and well-defined policy. I can't think of any reason why an easy-to-understand graph explaining CC licenses shouldn't be included here for those editors (like me) who are less than active! --NoGhost (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@NoGhost: Do you mean something like Commons:Copyright tags#Free Creative Commons licenses or Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, something like the presentation style of Upload work from Flickr would be very helpful. Also, it should not be buried away in some obscure policy page, it should be right there on the Special:UploadWizard Upload Wizard so editors can consult it immediately instead of having to hunt for it. Cnbrb (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So is anybody able to do this? I would offer to work on it but I don't think my copyright knowledge is strong enough to make a good job of it. I'm pasting the code below - this is specific to Flickr, so it will need to be adapted. If someone could please review it and make use of it, that would be really great for all editors. @NoGhost: @Jeff G.: Cnbrb (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• The icon "BY" means the image license requires attribution, as in an image is "BY" a certain person.
• SA is for "Share Alike".
• Licenses with NC ( - non-commercial use only) or ND ( - no derivative works) are not OK here. If the image is not OK, consider asking the author to release their work under a free license such as CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution license), or CC-BY-SA] (Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike).
• See also Commons:OTRS.

@Cnbrb and NoGhost: I reworked it as follows.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: , that's fantastic, thank you! That was quite a bit of work, I really appreciate your contribution! If I can make a suggestion, the icons are a bit small to read - could we maybe stretch to 100x35px? Cnbrb (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cnbrb: sure, 35px high rows it is, I copied from the previous table, which didn't have icons with much to read.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: , great stuff, thanks again! So have we covered all the CC scenarios appropriate for this page? I think we should insert this into the main project page, in the Acceptable licenses section. The cartoons are cute, but we may have to shuffle them around to accommodate this table, as I think this is more important. Cnbrb (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cnbrb: Exactly how would you change the structure of the project page to accommodate this table? I envision a "Creative Commons licenses" section near the bottom, linked from the "Well-known licenses" subsection.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I reckon this is really essential information and should be near the top in the first section where the reader can at once refer to it when trying to find out if an image is allowed or not. I think this is the key goal for reading this page. Maybe it would sit naturally in the Well-known licenses section? When I mention layout, I was really concerned about a table sitting next to right-aligned images and crashing into them! Cnbrb (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi again @Jeff G.: , I have inserted your recommended table into the main page. Feel free to revert if it's not quite right yet. Thanks Cnbrb (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought. Would you not consider it a better layout to move "by-sa" up to position #3 so all the acceptable and non-acceptable licenses are grouped together? Otherwise it looks great. Ww2censor (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, seems like a good idea. I'll make the adjustment. Cnbrb (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help & collaboration on this everyone. I think it makes the page easier to refer to when the prose is supported by simple, tabular information and a few relevant CC symbols to assist rapid identification of licenses. There are other license symbols that could possibly be added, for example the GNU, and Art Libre... but as this isn't my area of expertise, I'll stop here. Maybe other editors will want to add to this. Cnbrb (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Is CC-by-sa a reason to delete?

Is a CC-by-sa licence (as opposed to CC-by-sa-2.0 / CC-by-sa-4.0) a sufficient reason to delete? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Short answer: Not without discussion of history of the individual file, because clearly someone wanted a license there, and the reason it's not showing up is probably a combination of bot errors or interwiki misunderstandings, and probably not because the user didn't actually want a license. Long answer: If someone placed {{Cc-by-sa}} on a file before 2016-12-30, that certainly meant the same thing as {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} (or {{Cc-by-sa-old}} if you wish). It was replaced with the current warning, without discussion or community consent, on 2016-12-30, as you probably remember from Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/01#Another bulk process to delete large numbers of licensed files. Considering the circumstances under which Template:cc-by-sa was changed without consent, I have no reason to believe that "In order for this license to be valid, a version number must be given", regardless of whether it's in bold, since that claim is written by the same editor that was illogical enough to falsely remove a proper license from thousands of files over 10 years with one edit merely he didn't like how short the template's own name was. And regardless of whether a version number "must be given", that template was valid for 10 years, and probably still is valid on some wikis, and so the license version the uploader saw and used is probably discernible for each file that has that tag. --Closeapple (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a 2014 file Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dorset crosswheel buttons.jpg

Here: User_talk:Green_Giant#License_review_question we have an admin and a 'licence reviewer' claiming "Without a version number, we cannot host it, nor can we assume which license it might be." Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are two instances where the licensing originated off-wiki and was already ambiguous at the time the licenses were issued (2014 and 2015). What a mess! I've left opinions on both Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dorset crosswheel buttons.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cloudmaze.jpg. General rule, in my opinion: Each case needs to be traced back to the original conditions when it was licensed, to see if it was really ambiguous at the time. Then, if it was truly ambiguous, then one might explore whether every possible interpretation leads to a legal path to the same specific version of a specific license. (In the case of CC-BY-SA lacking a version number, I don't think every possible interpretation can lead to the same specific version: versions 2 and later allow version upgrades only for derivatives, and version 1.0 doesn't even allow that.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Review for transfer to commons

There is a picture on German Wiki Torpedo-Test 15 Okt 1805 Ship Dorothea sunk in 20 seconds.jpg. It was first time published in 1810 in US, and author - Robert Fulton - died on February 24, 1815. Can it be transfered from de: to Commons? It is over 200 years since original author passed. --Matrek (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Support.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Holomráz Tour

Dobrý den, chci přidat fotografie z koncertu Holomráz Tour, ale nevím zda by to porušilo autorská práva. Nad podiem je upravený obal alba Holomráz. Zde je odkaz na video, kde jde vidět podium: http://bit.ly/2FepbfT --Patriccck (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Can a copy of the last supper be purchased? Msrfranklin (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Msrfranklin: File:Última Cena - Da Vinci 5.jpg is considered the best display of Leonardo Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper on English Wikipedia. File:Leonardo da Vinci - The Last Supper high res.jpg is considered better here because it is entirely in the Public Domain. You may print either for private use, or the latter for commercial use. Yes, you may also buy such a print.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Private use or commercial use is (most likely) neither here nor there, nor do I see that the second file "is considered better here". In fact, they both come from the same source, so they both have the same legal issues!

@Msrfranklin: should look at Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs and consider their personal tolerance for legal risk. I don't think that private or commercial use changes whether it's legal, though it may change risk assessment. I had OfficeMax produce a copy of a painting on Commons for me, and it was quite reasonable and easy, though this shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of OfficeMax over anyone else; I suspect any number of small or chain shops offer similar reasonably priced printing services.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

1923 is now irrelevant

I'm changing the sentence that says Works published before 1923 are PD in the US, because it's irrelevant. The grandfather clause has now been completely subsumed by the general rule that works published 95 years ago are PD in the US, and the 1923 line is now just a historical footnote. Next year works published before 1924 will be PD, then 1925 the year after that, and so on.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, there must be a predicate of published before 1978. If you publish something today and die 50 years from today, the copyright will be 120 years: not 95 years after today's publication. You can say the 1923 is now irrelevant and delete it completely, but the correct statement next year would be "published before 1924". Glrx (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It will be over 50 years before the distinction of 95 years from publication and 95 years from publication and published before 1978 matters, assuming it hasn't changed.

This is a useful work, not a pedantic description of the law. However we cut it, we should communicate the idea that the main line to look for is 95 years from publication, not changing it every year as if it's an arbitrary unpredictable line. --Prosfilaes (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

So you added a line that is wrong in the exact same way as what I wrote, yet hides the consistent pattern from the reader?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding a schematic depiction

Hello, I'm planning to illustrate an article for the German Wikipedia by using this image (PDF, p. 7). Would it be OK to upload it to Commons under the PD-license considering it to be quite schematic and only showing physical laws? --Clemens Stockner (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've done it with slightly changes and CC to my name. Let's hope it stays online. --Clemens Stockner (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Clemens Stockner: It looks good, but what is "F_c"?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

F_c is the calving force, I'm going to add a legend in the description. --Clemens Stockner (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Clemens Stockner: Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, so we are talkig about threshold of originality? Ok, maybe that sketch is below, but is it really neccessary to redraw it one-to-one, even the waves? --Gretarsson (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ms. Gilani's Image

I have been authorized by the owner to publish this image File:Kimia.gilani.jpg Alikaremi (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alikaremi: You are welcome to prove that by having the copyright holder send permission via OTRS. @Hanooz: What do you think? I have started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kimia.gilani.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The Music Modernization Act and pre-1972 sound recordings

On the Village pump/Copyright, there was a discussion about the Music Modernization Act (MMA), which was signed into law in October of this year. From what I understand, and from what others have said, some of the provisions of the MMA mean that all sound recordings that were first fixed prior to February 15, 1972 are now covered solely by US federal copyright. (Prior to the MMA being enacted, sound recordings that were first fixed prior to February 15, 1972 were not covered by US federal copyright law but could be copyrighted under state laws and/or common law copyright at the state level. An exception to the previous statement is that certain foreign (non-U.S.) sound recordings could be subject to federal copyright (or, possibly, both federal and state-level copyright simultaneously) under the URAA.) Under the MMA, a pre-1972 recording's copyright term under federal copyright depends on when the recording was first published. From this, it seems that the information on Commons:Licensing about sound recordings, specifically some of the information in the section "Material in the public domain", is now outdated.

Based on the referenced VP/C discussion, and assuming that the MMA means that certain pre-1972 recordings will fully enter the public domain sooner than they would have done otherwise, and assuming that sound recordings first fixed on or after February 15, 1972 are subject to the same US copyright provisions as other works, I propose the following text for information on sound recordings and US copyright:

In the US, the copyright situation for sound recordings (including those published before 1923) is a special case. Under the Music Modernization Act, recordings that were first fixed prior to February 15, 1972 are copyrighted for a period of time under US federal copyright that depends on when the recording was first published. The specific copyright term lengths are as follows:

• Recordings that were first published prior to 1923 will enter the public domain on January 1, 2022.
• Recordings that were first published between 1923 and 1946 are copyrighted for a period of 100 years after first publication.
• Recordings that were first published between 1947 and 1956 are copyrighted for a period of 110 years after first publication.
• Recordings that were published after 1956 and first fixed prior to February 15, 1972 will enter the public domain on February 15, 2067.

Note that the copyright terms given above are not subject to the same formalities as other works. In particular, these copyright terms for sound recordings that were first fixed prior to February 15, 1972 apply regardless of whether a recording was published with a copyright notice, or whether a recording was registered with the US Copyright Office, or whether a recording's copyright was renewed.

Sound recordings that were first fixed on or after February 15, 1972 are subject to the same US copyright law term lengths and provisions as other works.

--Gazebo (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would put the documentation of the specific terms in the CLASSICS section of the Music Modernization Act wiki article, and link directly to that (probably good to add the copyright.gov article as both a reference and an external link there). I don't see the need to put that entire text in all places, but PD-US-record should be updated with that info, as should be the talk page (with a section at the top probably) so that links there see the updated information, and other places can just reference it. COM:L could perhaps list the bulleted special terms, but not sure it needs all the caveat text. w:Wikipedia:Public_domain#Sound_recordings needs updating.

I suppose there could be an ambiguity with URAA works starting in 2046, and a few countries possibly earlier, though it may take a while before any court case works that out :-) At first blush, these new clauses seem to apply to any recording made before 1972, not just ones not yet under federal protection. I would probably guess foreign works get the extended terms too (since they were supposed to be given the equivalent U.S. terms by the URAA). URAA works got the extended terms given in 1998; presumably they would get the longer terms here too unless a court says otherwise. Probably not worth it to mention.

Another bit of good information is that there is a special procedure which acts as the equivalent of registration for pre-1972 recordings. While not required to preserve copyright, it affects the damages you can get in return for violations (like registration still does for normal copyrighted works, and 1972 and later sound recordings). There is more info here, and a page here where these schedules will be searchable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I have updated the text on COM:L. In the updated text, I included a sentence about formalities (namely that formalities do not affect the copyright term for pre-1972 recordings) but I did not mention anything about the URAA and non-US recordings. Presumably, the updated text can be revised by others, but it seemed useful to update the existing outdated information. (As far as COM:L being official policy, there is still the issue of pre-1972 recordings that were uploaded to Commons prior to the MMA taking effect (at least some of those recordings were tagged with {{PD-US-record}}) but that issue may not be applicable to the COM:L text.) --Gazebo (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else think Wikipedia servers should be moved to a non-URAA country or international territory?

This page says: "Commons is an international project, but its servers are located in the U.S., and its content should be maximally reusable. Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published."

Anyone else think Wikipedia servers should be moved to a non-URAA country or international territory? An inherent bias is created by requiring items on Commons to be public domain in the United States - which is reflected by a major bias (of increased coverage) in most wikis of United-States related topics and significantly less coverage of non-US topics.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: Do you want to host them in Uzbekistan?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no preference for which non-URAA country, other than that the area must not be underwater in a few decades (So not Narau, Palau, or the Aral region) and be "internet-friendly" (so not Turkmenistan because of the insane internet laws). It was just a thought of something to consider one day - It's no secret that media on Commons has a disproportionate amount of American and European content - in fact, while Commons servers are already in the US, very few countries besides the US release government-made official photos under free licenses. --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You mean a nation with the rule of the shorter term. I don't think that has any connection with the bias towards US and the other nations with widespread PC ownership and Internet access in homes. It seems the bias might even be less if we dropped the rule of the country of origin, which is under our control; works published more than 95 years ago would be a clean consistent line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

a) Not gonna happen and this is the wrong place to ask the WMF to move. b) There are much bigger issues than duration of copyright terms with many other jurisdictions. For one example, the UK (among many others) allows copyright to be held in reproductions of 2D artworks (see Template:PD-art), and allows censorship of news about public figures by courts. The US is far from perfect but many fires exist in addition to the frying-pan. Think about such other concerns first. —innotata 00:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, The issue is not really where the files are hosted, because the WMF will never allow displaying files live on Wikipedia from an external source. However, you can host files on Wikilivres, which is now hosted in South Korea with a 50 years pma. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Because of the URAA, few works that are public domain in their country of origin are public domain in the United States. Many works public domain in the United States are not public domain internationally, and if there was a rule that items on Commons had to be public domain in both the country of origin and a different URAA signatory, then many, many, many old American photos would have to be deleted. Now, about what you said about the UK - we have many Wikipedians in the UK that are available for photo requests of public domain reproductions of 2D artworks, and historic UK copyright law is much shorter than other countries (50 years instead of 70+). Copyright duration is actually quite important - and setting copyright to last 95 years after first publication is actually too long when you realize that most stuff goes out of print, gets "lost" by history, becomes a "rare book" or "rare photo", then is literally never seen again...disappearing long before it can be saved to a site like Commons. There are less Wikipedians per square mile in Russia, Mexico, and Cuba, all of which have some of the least Commons-friendly copyright laws. If there were some way that Commons could allow items public domain in their country of origin (but not the US), it would significantly improve the quality of Wikipedia content.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear here; we're talking about the rule of the shorter term, which the US doesn't have. The URAA is really a side complication, best treated as leaving certain works in the public domain in the US that were in the public domain in their home countries in 1996. Many other countries signed the w:Marrakesh Agreement of 1994 produced at the end of the w:Uruguay Round, but only the US, due to its long defiance of international copyright, changed its copyright laws because of it.

Most works that are out of copyright in the EU or US are out of copyright in both; the difference between life+70 and publication+95 is not that huge. Publication+95 may be not great, but Mexico is life+100 (with works by authors who died by 1944 staying in the PD), which is quite a bit worse. Whatever historic UK law was, it is now fully life+70. Cuba's copyright law is life+50, but from what I've read, Internet there is largely by sneaker net, with shops offering curated collections downloaded from the net by those with net access. Nothing Commons can do will help that much.

I don't know what might be up with Russia, except that as one of the least densely populated countries on the planet, one expect fewer Wikipedians per square mile than in the rest of the world.

Commons could allow works that are PD in the US and not in their country of origin. Either way, I doubt the difference would "significantly improve the quality of Wikipedia content"; the disposition of some of the artistic and historical works from about 1900 to 1948 is important, but hardly significant given the thousands of years available and 70-120 (or flat 95) years of most recent works not available.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

If Commons allowed items that were public domain in the US but not their country of origin, the differences would be minimal. But there are far more well-needed items that are public domain in their country of origin, but not the US. I don't think my point was clearly understood - requringing all items to be public domain in a random country not always the country of origin (currently the US) means that that one country will basically end up with "most-favored-nation-status" on the wiki (ie, more photos from that country will be usable.). As for Cuba, I meant that their copyright law is crazy for the eternal copyright of postage stamps, postal issues, etc.

Take this one example of how copyright and image use policies make "wikipedia-ing" hard. There are many pictures that we know have reached the public domain that are very needed in Wikipedia articles. You save scans of all those newspaper clippings containing needed photos of deceased people for Commons. But the originals in actual quality (and not the torn, wrinkled, grainy, and stained newspaper clipping from WWII that is not "presentable" in an infobox) are in a specific museum in Belarus, Udmurtia, Kazan, or somewhere where no Wikipedian wants to go on a field-trip to. (By the way... over 99% of stuff from 1940 to 1948 from the Russian SFSR is not eligible for Commons. And nothing later is. And because of the copyright laws of the Soviet Union and the retroactive nature of Russian copyright law, nobody thought they would need to specifically release their works into the public domain.

95 years after publication is nice for books with clear-cut first publication dates like in the West, but sadly not everything is as clear-cut as we would like. Remember how often in the Soviet Union a small town's newspaper would be completely "lost" forever, becoming toilet paper and food wrappers? Right now, the existing archives of stuff published long ago enough are incredibly hard to acess, to the point it is more likely you will find what you are looking for "dumpster diving" through a couple auction websites and random blogs than you will be able to veiw the old newspapers and photo archives from a particular library. And if you find one public domain item, you are very, very lucky if you find the "match" (ie, a photo original that corresponds to a newspaper clipping).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, long copyright terms suck, but Russian copyright terms and archive access are what they are. This seems disconnected from the proposal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Works PD in the country of origin but not the US are not "far more" really -- 95 years from publication is probably on average similar to 70pma -- you probably have as many works last longer in the US as there are works which are longer in other countries (well 70pma countries anyhow). Any work where the author lives more than 25 years after creation will last longer in the EU (and many other countries) than it does in the US. It's understandably frustrating that copyright terms last so long, and that countries have thus far refused to really deal with en:orphan works where the copyright status is difficult to determine due to lack of information. That is, however, the law. It is frustrating to wait for long terms to expire in one country, but then have another country's law last even longer. However, that happens the other way -- there are lots of pre-1923 works that we cannot host due to the term in other countries. If you move out of the U.S., you lose PD-Art (as mentioned above), you lose the strong fair use protection in U.S. law (only a couple other countries have that, and not near the legal history of it) for situations where mistakes are made, and even in shorter term countries you may well lose PD-US-no_notice and PD-US_not_renewed, since the Berne Convention does not allow formalities and it's not clear that the "shorter term" rule would allow terms shortened by formalities, or would require the 95 years from publication be used. And for any countries that the U.S. signed an old copyright treaty where the other country gave U.S. authors the same term as national authors (as the U.S. did in reciprocation), you would lose PD-1923 as well -- there was a case in Germany where that old treaty was ruled to still be in effect, and gave U.S. authors the full 70pma term in Germany regardless if it became PD in the US. The U.S. signed a bunch of those old treaties before the en:Universal Copyright Convention was created. There are some admins who ignore the URAA, so at times you will see the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag applied instead, but any such work is subject to a DMCA takedown which would be respected. The Anne Frank stuff recently went through that -- the WMF took down the works after a DMCA was filed, as they are still protected by U.S. law. The URAA restorations really were similar to the EU restorations. As for Russia, yes it's rather unfortunate that they made their copyright fully retroactive to 70pma. They were at least 50pma on the URAA date so there is less chance of works PD in Russia still being copyrighted in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

As a side, if you've ever wondered what that treaty with Germany might impose on the US? Nothing. It required that President McKinley announce to Congress that we had a bilateral copyright treaty with Germany, but now that that has been done, there are absolutely no obligations on the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It obligated the U.S. to treat German authors' works the same as U.S. authors. The U.S. can't use the rule of the shorter term with German works either. Of course, at the time, that also meant German authors had to have copyright notices, file renewals, etc., which was even harder for them to follow than U.S. authors. But the existence of those treaties is probably why the U.S. could not really adopt the rule of the shorter term, as the EU does, when it joined Berne. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The treaty, at least the English version, can be found at s:Page:United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_27.djvu/1043. The appropriate section says:

The United States Government engages, in return, that the President of the United States shall, in pursuance of section 13 of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1891, issue the proclamation therein provided for in regard to the extension of the provisions of that Act to German subjects, as soon as the Secretary of State shall have been officially notified that the present agreement has received the necessary legislative sanction in the German Empire.

We've done that. Other treaties might be different, but a strict reading of this treaty puts no obligation on us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that act triggered the section of copyright law (26 stat 1110; sec. 13 there) which applied U.S. copyright law in full to German citizens. But yes, you could possibly read the treaty as the U.S. only granting the rights in the 1891 copyright law via the treaty, and no more. But that proclamation still triggers 17 USC 104(b)(6) of the current law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The servers are very fine at the US, for what Prosfilaes and others have said. EU countries in special should be avoided now, as there seems to be a trend here to be "more papist than the pope". It would be great, however, if a server (kind of Commons-B) would be mounted in another country to temporarily host files in PD in their country of origin, but not in the US because of URAA. Then they would be transferred to Commons as soon as they get PD in the US.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@DarwIn: Wikilivres can be used for that. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Apparently it doesn't use the central auth from the Wikimedia projects, so I thought it was disconnected. Nice to know it exists, I'll explore it better. Thanks, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

For obvious legal reasons, it is not managed by the WMF, but by an independent team. BTW donations welcome. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Donate to whom? The "about" page no longer states what person or entity holds the domain or server and the donation/PayPal page don't say who controls the account. Nemo 16:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Per https://wikilivres.org/wiki/User:Sysadmin "All donations are handled by Jeff, and go directly to website hosting costs." Not me, another Jeff.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 04:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

So it's still a personal account? (I would edit the wiki directly but it seems my account was deactivated.) Nemo 09:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is no formal structure for managing the website, just a group of people. And it seems there was some technical issue while moving the site from Canada to South Korea. The content was copied alright, but the accounts were not. So you have to recreate your account. I lost all my edit history. :( Regards, Yann (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

URAA template and files uploaded after 1 March 2012

Can we change "Files affected by the URAA should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}" to include the recommendation on that template's page: "This template should NOT be applied to files uploaded after 1 March 2012," so that the new text reads "Files affected by the URAA and uploaded after 1 March 2012 should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}"? Qono (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Posting

I get picture to post Gbagam (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gbagam: Please follow COM:FS.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong license for fragments of sheet music?

From May 12 till December 15, 2010 a large number of fragments of sheet music was uploaded by Nlkalwien with Source=own, overview here. The componist of each fragment is included in the name of each file. I don't think they are similar to user Nlkalwien. Several fragments are from works published by Molenaar Edition (Wormerveer, The Netherlands). This company uses the following statement: "No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form of print, photoprint, film or any other means without written permission of the publisher.". The Geo (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@De Geo: Please feel free to start a DR.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Works by the US Government

Question: Are works taken by United States federal employees as part of their official duties and posted on the federal agency's official flickr account in the public domain even though they are tagged as having "All rights reserved" on the flickr page itself?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: They should be, do you have an example?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: How's this or anything uploaded here?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Thanks. I posted a comment with a question on that Flickr photo.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks but it wasn't really about that specific photo, I've noticed a trend on a lot of U.S. agencies' flickr accounts. They all seem to be defaulted to "All rights reserved" despite U.S. copyright law. See the AFDW page given above and Nellis AFB as more examples. The AFDW even credits the official photographer in most cases.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: I wonder if such actions will stand up to inquiries from the House Oversight Committee.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I wouldn't hold my breath. In the meantime, do you think it would be okay upload photos from these accounts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: I think we probably need a Flickr whitelist first.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: How do we go about that?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: You could propose it at COM:VPP. You seem to have more evidence.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Kendi Çalışmamın Başkasının Çalışması Diye Silme Adayı Gösterilmesi

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Argentina_Flag.jpg Dosyanın bana ait olduğunu teyid ederim. Herhangi bir vikimedia commons kullanıcısının şikayeti ile çalışmamın silme adayı gösterilmesine ve üstelik kendi çalışmamın bana ait olmadığı mesaj ile iletilmesi gerçekten üzdü beni. Tekrar ediyorum kendi çalışmam ve diğer bütün dosyalar benim kendi çalışmalarımdır. Dosyalarımı herhangi bir stock sitesinde kendi satışım dışında, satışta gördüğüm takdirde konuyu yargıya taşıyacağımıda iletmek istiyorum. İyi günler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yimazbeyazduman (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Another Work of My Own Work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Argentina_Flag.jpg I confirm that the file is mine. I was really upset that my work with the complaint of any vikimedia commons user was shown with a nomination for deletion, and that my work was communicated with the message that my work did not belong to me. I repeat my own work and all other files are my own work. I would like to convey my files to the judiciary if I see my sales on any stock site except on my own sale. Have a nice day.
 

translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Yimazbeyazduman: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).  — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yimazbeyazduman: File:Argentina Flag.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina Flag.jpg başına silindi. COM:UDR adresine göndererek itiraz edebilirsiniz.

File:Argentina Flag.jpg was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Argentina Flag.jpg. You can appeal by posting to COM:UDR.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking for a WP decision maker

Hi. I uploaded some figures, which were then deleted-

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_User:AWCzarnik

The artwork I posted is Public Domain and would benefit the article. I'm looking for advice as to who could make the decision whether or not to sustain the delete, and if not who has the authority to put the artwork back on the article.AWCzarnik (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@AWCzarnik: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:AWCzarnik is still open, and could be decided by a Commons Administrator any day now. Almost anyone can add the artwork back on the article, subject to consensus on the article talk page (see en:WP:BRD and en:WP:DR).   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The UploadWizard and 1924 updating

The UploadWizard still lists 1923 as the cut-off year for public domain publication in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team would like to update the UW to reflect 1924 as Commons policy. I've posted about this over at Village pump/Copyright if anyone would like to bring up concerns, or if this is okay to proceed with. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Material in the public domain" needs important clarification

The section Commons:Licensing#Material in the public_domain lists copyright for various scenarios in the United State, including:

• For works first published before 1978: until 95 years after the first publication (emphasis as in original)

However, this only applies if the pre-1978 work was published with valid copyright notice, as explained in COM:HIRTLE, Public domain#Published works and {{PD-US-no notice}}. I propose this line be modified to:

• For works first published with copyright notice before 1978: until 95 years after the first publication

I'm open to changes in the wording of the proposed line, but a distinction between publication and publication with notice is essential. Objections? --Animalparty (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

CC-BY-ND?

Why CC-BY-ND is not allowed? Seems a bit too restrictive for me. Images with CC-BY-ND are allowed to be shared, even commercially. Image manipulation rights are nice to have but not necessary for free content.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sinuhe20: Please see the classification of "Non Derivatives" as one of the "Restrictions which are not permissible" at https://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions#Non_Derivatives.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: So Wikimedia Commons is a platform for "Free Cultural Works" like defined by Erik Möller? I still think image manipulation should not be necessary for showing images in Wikipedia. Most users only want to see images, not manipulate it. With this restriction a lot of useful photos e.g. on Flickr can not be used, that's really pitty.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sinuhe20: Yes, Wikimedia Commons is a platform for "Free Cultural Works" like defined by Erik Möller. See also Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Arshile Gorky and other American artists

Arshile Gorky, Alexis Jean Fournier and other American artists who died in 1948. Is it possible to upload their work here? Sources say different things about it. ([1], [2]) --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

See https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain . Basically, if it was published before 1924, it's in the public domain; if it was published after 2002, it's life+70; if it was published 1989-03-01 to 2002, it's copyrighted until 2047, and anything between 1924-1989 is quite possibly copyrighted, based on a complex set of rules that do not include the life of the author (unless they died after to 1977, in which in some cases means they get a full life+70).

Short answer, no.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Kebu

Hello, on the website of the Finnish musician there are pictures available for publication and it says on the website below "Use of these photos in media (print, TV or web) is allowed as long as the photographer is credited (file name contains the name of the photographer). Due to this statement I will upload 1 picture to be published in the articles of Wikipedia. Tokota (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tokota: Please don't. This statement is not sufficient for Wikimedia Commons. We need a release under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Look at the picture. It says clearly for which use it is allowed. Tokota (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tokota: Yes, but that's not sufficient. Wikipedia is not a media in that sense, but an encyclopedia. Beside please read COM:L before uploading anything here. You have a long list of deleted files because of copyright violation. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: You must change your politics. Many times I have sent emails from the copyright holders allowing beeing published on Wikipedia that were ignored from you, even 1 picture of myself that was rejected by you. I ignore also. Tokota (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tokota: We won't change our policies, but may we can help you. Do you have the ticket numbers for your permissions? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: I will not start now and look through my old emails. This fair is read. I am not interested to insist proving the legalality of the uploaded and distributed pictures from the companies. You should know Tokota. Commons is too severe in judging. Tokota (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tokota: Fine, your choice. But you will be blocked if you upload more copyrighted works. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tokota: A free license must allow any use, and not be restricted to "print, TV, and web" (even though that is a lot). In a movie, for example. On a t-shirt, or whatever. Uploading it is not a violation of law, since we are within the stated license, but it does violate site policy, and the images would be removed without a more explicit permission being sent to OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Game of Thrones and Slza

Hi, can be uploaded this and this files to Commons? --Patriccck (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Can you please help? Patriccck (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

They're fine in the US, but I have no idea what the Czech Republic's threshold of originality is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Please see this page. --Patriccck (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Matěj Orlický, Frettie, Rosičák, and Shlomo: Can someone please help? --Patriccck (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I dont think so. --Frettie (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Update links to Copyright Office search

In the section about public domain material, the link to the online search at the Copyright Office is broken. This an up-to-date link, and this one to the currently proof-of-concept Virtual Card Catalog should probably be added since it allows searching for pre-1978 copyright information. -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference to 1923 in the section "Material in the public domain"

--Gazebo (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

In the section "Material in the public domain", there is the following sentence:

In the U.S. this date is January 1, 1923.

This should probably be changed to use {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} for the year instead of 1923. --Gazebo (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gazebo: Thanks for the note, I changed it. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Youtube video (CC-BY-SA) for extracting part of it's audio

I was looking for a piece of audio of a national anthem. I found one with a CC-BY-SA license, it's in a video on Youtube. Am I allowed to use it on Commons and if so, how can I best go about doing this? --oSeveno (User talk) 10:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong place to ask, moved it. --oSeveno (User talk) 10:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Photographs by Willem van de Poll (1895-1970)

Can someone clue me in on Category:Photographs by Willem van de Poll? The photographer died in 1970 so why would any of his photographs be in the public domain or otherwise under free licenses? Haukurth (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like they were provided to Commons via a partnership program with the Dutch Nationaal Archief, so presumably the photographer donates his photographs (and the copyright) to the archives, who in turn licensed them CC0. From here, it sounds like his niece and heir (who had earlier donated the physical photographs) transferred all rights to the National Archives in 1998. So, the license is whatever the Nationaal Archief says it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I now notice "Auteursrechthebbende Nationaal Archief, CC0" here for example: [3] which is good. Haukurth (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

More about the photographs of the Dutch National Archives (including the Van de Poll Collection) can be found here. More about Van de Poll as photographer can be read in this book by Louis Zweers. Vysotsky (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Creative Commons Public Domain Mark

I think we need to update this guidance page concerning the version 1.0 of the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark which is used a lot on Flickr. I have several times uploaded Flickr images marked as Public Domain in good faith, only to have them deleted instantly. The flickr2commons tool checks files for copyright problems but gives a false "all-clear" to PD photos. This is misleading, and very confusing and frustrating for editors.

The explanation about the problems with public domain is given in Template:Flickr-public domain mark. I don't fully understand this issue myself, but I do feel that this Commons guide should explain this in the Well-known licenses section. The issue is touched on by the Commons:Flickr files guide, but it is not immediately obvious to the reader. I think we should also link to the Flickr guide.

I propose that we should incorporate parts of the table on Template:Flickr image info into this Commons:Licensing page, in particular this row:

Flickr image info	License	OK here?	Relicense Name
Public domain	Public Domain Mark	Generally no (more info)	Public Domain Work

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 July 2019‎ (UTC)

• Hey, I (re)wrote that row. Pinging @Victuallers. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cnbrb: Exactly how do you propose we do that?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Add it to the first row of the table already in the Well-known licenses section, thus:

Summary of Creative Commons licenses on Wikimedia Commons

Creative Commons license icons and names	Abbreviations & versions	OK here?
Public domain	CC Public Domain Mark	Generally no (more info)
Zero Public Domain, "No Rights Reserved"	CC0	OK
Attribution	CC-BY (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	OK
Attribution-ShareAlike	CC-BY-SA (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	OK
Attribution-NonCommercial	CC-BY-NC (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	NOT OK
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs	CC-BY-NC-ND (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	NOT OK
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike	CC-BY-NC-SA (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	NOT OK
Attribution-NoDerivs	CC-BY-ND (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	NOT OK

So I have updated my proposed table and propose adding a subsection to the Material in the public domain section- please input with your corrections and changes:

Summary of Creative Commons licenses on Wikimedia Commons

Creative Commons license icons and names	Abbreviations & versions	OK here?	Notes
Public domain	CC Public Domain Mark 1.0	GENERALLY NO	Often found on Flickr images, but considered problematic for use on Commons - see Public Domain section below
Zero Public Domain, "No Rights Reserved"	CC0	OK
Attribution	CC-BY (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	OK
Attribution-ShareAlike	CC-BY-SA (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	OK
Attribution-NonCommercial	CC-BY-NC (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	NOT OK
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs	CC-BY-NC-ND (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	NOT OK
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike	CC-BY-NC-SA (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	NOT OK
Attribution-NoDerivs	CC-BY-ND (1.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0)‎	NOT OK

PD 1.0 and Flickr

See also: Commons:Flickr files.

The Creative Commons Public Domain 1.0 licence is often applied to images on photography websites such as Flickr.com. This mark is considered problematic and it not suitable for use on Commons. For further information, see the discussion Flickr and PD images#Status of PD Mark 1.0.

Question about unpublished photos

I may be asked to upload, or provide advice on uploading, pictures of political candidates who already have English Wikipedia articles, or Wikidata items. The pictures would be by some photographer the candidate knows. Obviously the photographer would have to grant a free license, and the submission of the photo would have to involve Commons:OTRS.

OTRS has a long backlog, to the point OTRS approval may not come in time for a reasonable lead time before the elections in 2020. Can the pictures be submitted now, and stay there until the hard-working OTRS volunteers give a yea or nay?

Obviously someone who holds the copyright needs to send the email to OTRS. Does this have to be the photographer, or can it be the copyright holder, if it is a work made for hire?

Is there any problem with uploading the picture myself, with the appropriate attribution, in case the copyright holder does not have the patience to learn how to do Wikidata uploads?

Disclosure: I am chairman of the Democratic Town Committee for Castleton, Vermont, USA. Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gerry Ashton: You can start now, and add {{subst:OP}} to each file as you are copied on email messages per OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gerry Ashton: The sender of the email should be the copyright owner; the author can’t release the copyright (or publish the picture under a free license) if they don’t own the rights to be released. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gerry Ashton: do be careful when considering if the works are actually work-for-hire under US law as the US Copyright Office has some very specific requirements. The following two links cover the topic:

• Works Made for Hire Columbia Law School
• Works Made for Hire United States Copyright Office

Ww2censor (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Question

Is Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) allowed on the Commons? And if so why is it not in the list in the upload file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMMcMaster (talk • contribs) 02:03, 30 July 2019‎ (UTC)

@MMMcMaster: Yes, it is allowed, see COM:L#Well-known licenses.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Facebook ban?

Are all images which have ever been anywhere near Facebook banned from Commons?

Where and when was this decided? COM:FACEBOOK is a redlink. We should never have a "global ban" on anything if there isn't at least a simple link to the relevant policy.

What is a "Facebook image"? How is this defined? Does it require a link to the image on Facebook? How else do we determine an upload to Commons to be a "Facebook image"?

Must all images be deleted simply for appearing on Facebook? If it is a copy from Facebook (and how is that defined?) or does it also apply if a matching copy also appears on Facebook?

As it is, we have a number of admins who are deleting images for being "Facebook images" and for no more reason than that. Certainly none is given. It is unclear as to why Facebook is a problem, nor even how they are identified as being "Facebook images". And yet through all of this, there is no sign of any policy behind it, or documented guidelines as to how Commons (as a body) regards "Facebook images", merely the whim of a handful of admins.

Just a few examples would be Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 創造未來，迎接康莊 and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karen Melchior MEP (48306127612).jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Facebook's Terms of Use are incompatible with copying from Facebook and publishing here without owning the copyright (or without confirming beforehand that you own the copyright) because we don't allow Fair Use here. The metadata for images copied from Facebook clearly includes a string starting with "FBMD" such as "FBMD01000a9c0d000072330000e8720000767900000381000074ae000061120100871a0100d4260100fb330100bce10100" as "Special instructions" in the EXIF metadata. Some other images have their EXIF metadata scrubbed and are found existing on Facebook via reverse image search on Tineye, Google Images, or other methods I am not privy to. For such images, I typically advise uploaders to please have the copyright holder edit or comment on their post with COM:L compliant permission and post here the link to that permission, or send permission via OTRS with a carbon copy to the uploader and edit/post with the ticket number. If the uploader wants to use the file on English Wikipedia, they should please read WP:F.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Not that it really changes anything, but it might be worth noting here that files from Instagram (which is owned by Facebook) also have the FBMD metadata. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Comment The only Facebook files we should accept are selfies, when uploaded by the subject, as the uploader is obviously the copyright holder. But we usually do not accept them for other reasons. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: Even in the case of selfies, sure the Facebook user is probably the copyright holder, but we need a link from that person to the Commons uploader.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean when the Commons contributor is obviously the same person as the depicted person. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• So where's a clear policy statement on this? Where's the definition of what "Facebook image" means, and how we objectively assess that? Because so far this seems to be one of those vague handwaves which a nominator can throw into a DR as supposedly unchallengeable – even when there's no evidence of being Facebook sourced, such as the EXIF. (see 1st example). The second example is itself an FB "selfie" that's being deleted anyway (I can't see much else as there are no links and I can't see the deleted image – although the nominator doesn't understand EU copyright law and the notion of "work for hire"). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Files that have appeared on the Internet already get the stink eye. Facebook is no exception.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• But how do we tell? We need some objective criteria for when we're going to call "Facebook" and "Needs deletion as a result". Just finding a file with no connection to Facebook and summoning the magic word in the DR nomination isn't good enough.

After all, we're perfectly happen to recycle bulk content from Flickr, Panaramio etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Facebook is generally not a useful source for media; though there can be exceptions - for example when a museum or library releases some clearly public domain images on their Facebook feed. Since Facebook compresses images, if the image is uploaded elsewhere like the institution's website, that version would be preferred, but on occasion it's only on Facebook. This is a rare exception, but an example of exceptions to the usual. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Photograph of sign with text?

Can somebody take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alta Loma Historical Marker.jpg. The claim that this is a copyvio seems patently absurd to me, but would appreciate input from an expert. RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Why patently absurd? It's a lot of text, far too recent to be PD, and the erecting body has not released the text under a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• It is four paragraphs of text, dated 1994. US historical markers with words are generally OK *if* the words are just short simple statements of fact (eg, "Writer John Smith born here, 1804"), or the markers are old enough to have been from when US copyright required notice and registration rather than being automatic. This example is too long and too new. No indication original is under free license. One might consider certain aspects of copyright law inconvenient, annoying, or even absurd, but laws are what they are, and on Commons we have to follow them as best we can -- to keep Wikimedia Commons a legitimate repository of free licensed material. Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Strange licence

I have a copyright issue about this series of uploads : I don't understand the copyright rules of the site, mentionning Stock photo licensing, often referred to as commercial licensing. Are these files allowed on commons? Or do they fall under this Getty licence agreement ?

• File:Dandy Inexdesign Photo (119417329).jpeg
• File:Dandy Inexdesign Photo (119417255).jpeg
• File:Dandy Inexdesign Photo (119417409).jpeg
• File:Dandy Inexdesign Photo (119417383).jpeg
• File:Dandy Inexdesign Photo (119417253).jpeg
• File:Dandy Inexdesign Photo (119417357).jpeg
• File:Dandy Inexdesign Photo (119417453).jpeg
• File:Dandy Inexdesign Photo (119417283).jpeg
• File:Dandy Inexdesign Photo (119417419).jpeg

--Havang(nl) (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Havang(nl): What do they have to do with Getty?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Was the Cc-by-3.0 reviewed/confirmed at the time of upload? If so, that's a legitimate license. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• It comes from website https://web.500px.com/ )(the logo is in the image) which has https://500px.com/licensing/licensing and for which there is the End-User License Agreement (EULA) https://www.gettyimages.ca/eula .--Havang(nl) (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Havang(nl) and Infrogmation: The photos were irrevocably licensed Cc-by-3.0 at the time of original upload to 500px, as evidenced by the archive links.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  and what about the two logos on each of these images? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Are signatures of living/NO-PD artists copyrightable?

Can I upload signatures on paintings by non-PD artists? Like Picasso's signature... ? --Sailko (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Sailko: Whether or not signatures are generally eligible for copyright protection depends on the jurisdiction. Unfortunately, we only have information on the situation in a few countries. The burden of proof is on the uploader to show that {{PD-signature}} applies. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How about exaggerated licenses

Often I meet SVG drawings which are extremly simple and are obviously {{PD-shape}} or {{PD ineligible}} but are bearing a most complicated license construct, generating more than a page of output, and many categories. As an example, the file Romb.svg is licensed with {{ Self | Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0 | Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated | GFDL }} where only a {{PD-shape}} would be appropriate to such a simple stroke. I could nominate many other files of simplest geometries, or candidates for {{PD-text}}. IMHO users should be clearly told to use adequate licences in such cases of ineligibility. -- sarang♥사랑 13:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

For one, there's way too much of a social cost for a minor cosmetic change. If people get to choose their licenses within the rules, they get to choose their licenses, without people harassing them about it.

Secondly, SVG files are computer code. They may be internally PD-simple, but they may be PD-shape yet quite complex inside. Except in the rare case where we need a PD or CC-0 license so we can use them as button labels, etc. without linking to the image page, it's not worth fighting about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

But are they licensed incorrectly? Almost certainly. Could you justify changing that license? My guess is "yes". Would this upset the uploader, who had claimed licensing rights to an image of a circle? Yeah, probably. A loose necktie (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this explicit enough?

I wanted to upload a picture of David Bruce to add to his Wikipedia page. His website has a gallery of "Publicity Photos," and each one has a button underneath it reading "download." Is this explicit enough evidence that the images are PD and may be used on Wikipedia etc.? Just wanted to check, since I'm relatively new here. Noahfgodard (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Noahfgodard, no. They would require an explicit release. In the absence of such (and I see nothing on the website) those images must be assumed to be All Rights Reserved. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. If you wanted to use such a photo on his Wikipedia page, you would need to find out the name of the photographer and ask him/ her if they would be willing to license a photo of him under an acceptable free license. If the photographer agreed, then they would have to submit a statement to OTRS saying, "I am the license holder and I agree to license this image under a free license" (like CC-BY-SA 4.0). Some photographers are willing to do this, it often comes down to how you make your case to them. Good luck! A loose necktie (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Putin, Shtepo and Bugakov 2004-03-11.jpg

Please explain me what is wrong with this file. Doesn't {{Kremlin.ru}} work?— Redboston 08:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC) @Magog the Ogre: — Redboston 12:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently not -- per its documentation, it is now only a source template, meaning you have to add the license tag with the correct version as well. Its documentation says to put in {{kremlin.ru}}{{cc-by-4.0|[http://kremlin.ru kremlin.ru]}}. Looks like it changed about four years ago, so files with only the Kremlin.ru template show up in the "files without a license" maintenance categories. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I was careless and didn't notice this change. I haven’t downloaded files from Kremlin.ru for a long time. Who should remove the template: me or an administrator?— Redboston 14:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Minor update proposed (nitpick ... fix the grammar / "wording")

In the currently latest version (the 22:34, 15 November 2019‎ version) of this project page, there is a locution that seems to me -- (and, IMHO, not just to me) -- to be incorrect use of English.

What it says

If you click on the link above -- (the one displayed as "22:34, 15 November 2019‎") -- then you can (use Ctrl-F, or some other method, to) find the words

please use of the discussion page to propose changes to this policy.

Why that is not correct

IMHO, this sub-section might be 'overkill' [unnecessary] for anyone who is a native speaker of English, but ... (as a way of seeking consensus) (or ...maybe just "lack of disagreement"), here is the explanation:

1. The presence of the preposition "of", right after the word "use", is appropriate only if the word "use" is a noun.
2. The presence of the word "please", right before the word "use", is appropriate only if the word "use" is a verb.
3. You can't [simultaneously] have it both ways.

If you disagree with this rationale, -- or have any other comments -- other than, perhaps, the suggestion that this [whole sub-section] is so obvious that it goes without saying -- then you are welcome to chime in with a response.

The change that I suggest

I propose to delete the third word ("of") -- (from in between "please use" and "the discussion page") in the phrase

please use of the discussion page to propose changes to this policy.

where it appears in the project page that "goes with" this "Talk:" page.

That change is so minor that I almost just edited it, without making any entry on this "Talk:" page.

However, at least once, in the past, I was too quick to change a "project page" without getting consensus first, and ... that "edit" got speedily deleted ^H^H reverted.

Any comments?

This is a VERY minor change. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed that the sentence to be modified ... is -- it seems -- actually being trans cluded from some other part of the wiki-verse. I saw a line that said:

{{#ifeq:{{PAGELANGUAGE}}|en|{{policy}}|{{Translated policy|lang={{PAGELANGUAGE}}}}}} :

and ... apparently the "{{policy}}" part of that line ... indicates -- (to someone who knows more about this stuff than I do) -- where the actual edit would -- "if appropriate" -- have to be made.

One more reason why it would not have been "advisable" for me to try to bypass the step of "seeking consensus" (see: ... this whole section of this "Talk:" page) and just go straight to editing the project page. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit has now been done

The change made was as shown in this DIFF listing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Policy/en&diff=next&oldid=369818117

As stated above, this was a VERY minor change. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

foto

Kan iemand asb die foto van my verwyder in Wikipedia? Ek kan 'n ander foto verskaf. ek weet nie wie om te kontak nie? Wie is Morné van Rooyen wat die foto gegee het? M Joubert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlisejoubert (talk • contribs) 15:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

هل استطيع ان انشر صور ؟؟ Brahim Criminel (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

GFDL

Why are GFDL-only files from after October 2018 not allowed? Was there some sort of change that GFDL made then? Kingofthedead (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingofthedead: this policy change was implemented following a community discussion about GFDL at Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/08#No longer allow GFDL for some new uploads. clpo13_(talk) 21:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Violent explosion of screenshot licensing imminent?

A couple of months ago I figured that it will be nice to also add a screenshot representing a wiki to Wikidata thus enriching the respective wikis data set. Probably this is also nice for preserving the appearance of the wiki over time. I guess when looking at the licensing implications this good idea does not translate into good results.

Template Wikimedia project screenshot tells me: "To the uploader: Include always the authors and licenses of all images in the screenshot." That's basically impossible for most sites, even if it is a website/wiki publishing content with free licenses. E.g. the name is copyrighted, the logo and the screenshot may also contain copyrighted images or images are licensed with a license incompatible with Commons. What happens if the screenshot contains a screenshot etc. We are not even talking about text here.

Also if we assume we added all the information and licenses to the screenshot's pages, it appears that the screenshot is multi licensed which is obviously not correct. An easy example will be this file File:20200712 Screenshot MediaWiki.org.png only contains images of about 13 files. Also we know that WMF allows to depict their copyrighted logo etc. material for such cases, but for all other screenshots of foreign websites or wikis...

This is a melange of issues I am no longer capable to handle giving my legal knowledge. To me it looks like all up-loaders of screenshots similar to this one are basically "with one foot in gaol". I personally conclude that it is best to delete all of this. It will be nice to get an opinion on this. Perhaps there is even a policy I have not found yet, instructing me what to do.

Thanks for you comments. Cheers --[[kgh]] (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I should add that image use on screenshots often falls under Commons:De minimis; therefore not requiring specific licensing information. As far as WMF logos are concerned, they are copyrighted but licensed freely, so that case is in general not problematic. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰. The images pictured on the screenshot are not used per se, and linking to the permanent page (if it is a Wiki page) should be more than sufficient as a means of citing the images' sources.Joaopaulo1511 (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

please update UNESCO collection of copyright laws , link and rename

UNESCO has update it link and name to "Collection of National Copyright Laws" http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=14076&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Mibilove (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Bild mit Pierre-Laurent Wantzel

Ist es möglich ein gegoogeltes Bild mit Pierre Wantzelt, das mithilfe des Snipping Tools erzeugt wurde, als png-Bild zu verwenden ? Für eure Bemühungen vielen Dank im Voraus. Mit Gruß Petrus3743 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Picture with Pierre-Laurent Wantzel

---

Is it possible to use a googled image with Pierre Wantzelt, which was created with the help of the snipping tool, as a png image? Thank you in advance for your efforts. With regards

translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Petrus3743: Hallo und willkommen. Die Chancen stehen dagegen. Wenn Sie keine Lizenz gemäß Commons:Licensing/de erhalten können, kann das Bild weiterhin gemäß en:WP:F oder Wikipedia in die englische oder deutsche Wikipedia hochgeladen werden de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist weil wir hier keine faire Verwendung zulassen.

Hi, and welcome. The odds are against that. If you can't get a license in compliance with Commons:Licensing, the image may still be uploaded to English or German Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F or de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist because we don't allow Fair Use here.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Hallo und danke für deine Nachricht. Alles habe ich leider noch nicht verstanden. Pierre Wantzelt ist gestorben am † 21. Mai 1848. Wird Pierre Wantzelt gegoogelt sieht man immer das gleiche Bild, eine Zeichnung: en.classora.com, paginas.matem.unam.mx, medium.com, peoples.ru, apresentandomvm.blogspot.com, youtube.com und slideserve.com Frage: Wer hat die Rechte auf dieses Bild? Mit Gruß --Petrus3743 (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your message. Unfortunately, I haven't understood everything yet. Pierre Wantzelt died on May 21, 1848. If Pierre Wantzelt is googled you always see the same picture, a drawing: en.classora.com, paginas. matem.unam.mx, medium.com, peoples.ru, apresentandomvm.blogspot.com, youtube.com and slideserve.com Question: Who has the rights to this image? With regards

translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Leider konnte niemand ein glaubwürdiges Bild von ihm finden. Getty sagt, dass ein gemeinsames Porträt tatsächlich ein "Porträt des französischen Mathematikers und Arztes Gaspard Gustave de Coriolis" bei https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/whole-artwork-view-portrait-of-french-mathematician-and-news-photo/843217352 ist, aber ein ähnliches Porträt bei https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/portrait-du-math%C3%A9maticien-fran%C3%A7ais-gaspard-gustave-coriolis-news-photo/956706742 hat und wir das als File:Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis.jpg haben, also glaube ich dieses gemeinsame nicht.

Sadly, no one has been able to find a believable image of him. Getty says a common one is actually a "Portrait of French mathematician and physician Gaspard Gustave de Coriolis" at https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/whole-artwork-view-portrait-of-french-mathematician-and-news-photo/843217352 but has a similar portrait at https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/portrait-du-math%C3%A9maticien-fran%C3%A7ais-gaspard-gustave-coriolis-news-photo/956706742 and we have that as File:Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis.jpg, so I don't believe that common one.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Vielen Dank für deine Unterstützung! Wenn ich alles richtig verstanden habe, zeigt das Bild nicht den französischen Mathematiker Pierre Wantzelt. Liebe Grüße Petrus3743 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! If I understand everything correctly, the picture not shows the French mathematician Pierre Wantzelt. best regards

translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Petrus3743: Richtig. Pinging @Mschlindwein, Yann als Uploader.

Correct. Pinging @Mschlindwein, Yann as uploaders.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Adolf Butkevich.JPG

Коллеги, посмотрите лицензионный статус файла. Фото взято из книги 2014 года. Kalendar (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Colleagues, look at the file's license status. Photo taken from 2014 book.

translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kalendar: Привет и добро пожаловать. Пожалуйста, нажмите кнопку с надписью на английском языке: «Запросить быстрое удаление» и «вместо этого начать регулярный запрос / обсуждение удаления».

Hi, and welcome. Please push the button which in English says "Challenge speedy deletion" and "start a regular deletion request/discussion instead".   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @1234qwer1234qwer4 as tagger.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Ah, I forgot to answer, but my deletion request was exactly in response to this post. @Kalendar: Действительно; файл быстро удалён согласно моей номинации. 17:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk • contribs)

Please mention {{Noncommercial}} and {{Nonderivative}}

Plenty of such files on Commons. This would help get rid of them. This is a policy page, so discuss. That's an order. --Palosirkka (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Palosirkka: What language do you suggest we add/change? If add, where?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Not sure. Maybe add another section before the lists at end begin (so just before the Copyright rules). The new section could be titled something like Tagging non-compliant files. And the text suggest that if one comes across such files, just add the relevant template. --Palosirkka (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

An image licensed by CC-NC was deleted linking to this page, wikipedia is not commercial use, can someone explain why non commercial clauses exclude use from wikipedia?

Thank you TZubiri (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@TZubiri: Hi, and welcome. I'm sorry, but the license restrictions -nc- (noncommercial) and -nd- (no derivatives) are not usable by themselves for Wikimedia Commons. For the reasons, please see Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 06:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Zoom Alma Mater Europaea.jpg

Please someone help me. I have published several photos over the past years, and most of them get deleted because I do not know how to license them correctly. I took a photo in my office, it is me and my colleagues in the photo, and another user informed me that the "Source of derivative work is not properly indicated." It is my own work, I (and persons in the photo) wish this photo to be public, we wish to release any copyright to the public domain, but we do not know how to technically do it on Wikipedia. What exactly should I write in the file description and where should I write it? File:Zoom_Alma_Mater_Europaea.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Topjur01?markasread=30827289&markasreadwiki=commonswiki#Source_of_derivative_work_is_not_properly_indicated:_File:Zoom_Alma_Mater_Europaea.jpg Thank you for your help. Topjur01 (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Topjur01: Hi, and welcome. Each of your colleagues on that Zoom teleconference has the copyright for their individual videography. 廣九直通車 and I feel that we need permission from them. Please have each of them post permission on their official website or social media or send permission and image via OTRS with a carbon copy to you because we don't allow Fair Use here.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff G. and 廣九直通車 for your assistance. We have done as you suggested. Each person depicted in the photo sent an email with a permission to the OTRS. Thanks again. Topjur01 (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

جایزه داستان مازندران

با درود خواستار ضمیمه کردن نشان جایزه داستان مازندران به صفحه می‌باشم Maheezadyar (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mazandaran Story Award

---

Greetings

I would like to attach the Mazandaran Story Award badge to the page

translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about the GFDL

I'd like to ask for clarification about the GFDL policy. If there is a photo on Commons which is GFDL-only and was licensed and uploaded before 2018, is it permitted to crop this photo and upload the cropped version to Commons for use on another Wikimedia project? Please let me know. Pinging @Vaticidalprophet: , who brought up this concern at wikivoyage:en:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub. —Granger (talk  · contribs) 17:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet and Mx. Granger: I would say yes. --MGA73 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason is Commons:Licensing#GNU_Free_Documentation_License says "The content was licensed on or after 15 October 2018." The original file is licensed GFDL before that date and a crop needs the same license as the original so it would also be licensed GFDL before that date. --MGA73 (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Exlibris of Rubens Borba de Moraes (dead 2.11.1986)

I made a screenshot of the exlibris of Rubens Borba de Moraes from the File:Historia da America Portugueza (1500-1624).pdf (page 2) published in Wikimedia Commons. How about the license of this image? With what kind of license can I upload this image? Thanks for help. My question in German: Ich möchte einen Screenshot des Exlibris von R. Borba de Moraes hochladen. Es befindet sich in der PDF-Datei File:Historia da America Portugueza (1500-1624). Mit welcher Lizenz ist der Screenshot hochzuladen? Danke für deine Hilfe. --Matutinho 08:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Matutinho: Hi, and welcome. You should use the same {{PD-scan|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1738}} tag.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Jeff G., thanks for your help. I uploaded the file:Historia da America Portugueza (1500-1624).pdf. Can you please control wether I did it well. I don't know, who is the author of the exlibris. I am the author of the screenshot, not of the exlibris. Certainly, Rubens Borba de Moraes ordered this stamp, which date do not refer to the year of publication of the book. The exlibris came in the book while Rubens Borba de Moraes was living. Please control and correct my opload and inform me, please. Thanks. --Matutinho 06:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Matutinho: I fixed up File:Historia america portugueza.JPG for you in this edit. A transcription of it in Portuguese with translation to English would be helpful, either in the title field (analogous to the description field in {{Information}}) or in a new section. I also added {{Image extracted}} to File:Historia da America Portugueza (1500-1624).pdf for you in this other edit.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thank you. Can you please control the File:Exlibris Rubens Borba Moraes. This is the screenshot I made from the file:Historia da America Portugueza (1500-1624). Is it OK so? --Matutinho 12:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Matutinho:  Done.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G. Thank you. Matutinho 06:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Matutinho: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change of cutoff date for GFDL

Info: Proposal to change cutoff date. Current date can be seen at Commons:Licensing#GNU_Free_Documentation_License and is 15 October 2018. --MGA73 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Die-shot photo from Roman Hartung to be upload by me

Hello,

Roman Hartung (der8auer.com) has made several die-shot photos from the Intel Itanium CPU (on youtube: We destroyed the Intel Itanium - My most beautiful Die-Shots ever!). He told me that he is willing to release one photo for free Wikipedia use, i.e. he will send me the photo and I will upload and use it. What content must his e-mail has that I don't run into licensing trouble? Is there some standard form or ...? Thanks!

Bye!
--2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Though I've not dealt with such a situation myself, guidance for this can be found on Commons:Volunteer Response Team. Specifically there's a section called If you are NOT the copyright holder.

The TL;DR is that you should have Roman choose one of the licenses that Commons accepts, then you upload the file to Commons and mark it with the license chosen by him and also add the {{subst:OP}} tag to the license section. Then Roman needs to provide verifiable consent either by using the OTRS release generator or by sending an email with the permission declaration (preferably by using an email template to ensure the declaration is valid) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The Volunteer Response Team will then verify the permission.

Note that there is no "just for use on Wikipedia" permission but licenses accepted by Commons require files to be able to be used and modified by anyone and everyone, including commercial use. Creators often find this objectionable but I hope Roman realizes the value of freely usable content, especially in case of something historical like this. We could use some more die shots around here. -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Could it be argued that they are derivative works of the original processor, which will have been designed? It may not be possible to release die shots under a free license. Secretlondon (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Veikk0.ma. I found the required info under the provided Volunteer Response Team link. FYI: OTRS is now VRTS
--2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Spectrograms of natural sound recordings

Spectrogram of the song of a bush-cricket

I plan to make spectrograms of some insect songs. The picture here is an example from an own recording, so it is not a problem. Could it be a problem if I would take for such a spectrogram some seconds of a sound recording from an other (not free) source? --PaulT (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd think using unfree sources would make them derivative work per Commons:Derivative works, so I'd recommend not doing that sort of thing for Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change: hatnote link to Help:Public domain

I propose adding {{See|Help:Public domain}} to the top of the Material in the public domain section. (I tried to boldly make this change, but got an error telling me to discuss the change on the talk page.) Colin M (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Support.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A friend gave me the right to use his photographs on Wikipedia : which license should I use ?

When somebody asks you to upload a picture to Commons....

Good evening, I would need your help: a friend agreed to let me use the photos he took to illustrate in Wikipedia articles. These photographs come from his personal collection and he gave them to me.

I uploaded 3 images to Wikimedia Commons but I couldn't find an editing license corresponding to our situation. Here are the links to the 3 photographs : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_d%27Astazou_depuis_les_environs_de_la_hourquette_de_Pailla,_le_11-09-2000,_P._Ren%C3%A9.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_de_Pailla_Est_depuis_la_Hourquette_de_Pailla,11-09-2000,_P._Ren%C3%A9.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_de_Pailla_Ouest,_11-09-2000,_P._Ren%C3%A9.jpg

Because of this lack of information on licenses, these images may be deleted, which would be a real shame.

So, under what license should these images be published on Wikimedia Commons?

Thanks in advance !

Axel GREGER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel GREGER (talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at COM:OTRS (but it's not called that any more). In particular, "allowed for use on Wikipedia" is a reason for deletion here! They need to be free for use for everyone, not just Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The simplest solution would be for your friend to create his owns Commons account, upload the images to Commons himself, tagging them as his own work with an appropriate Creative Commons licence. Then it's all legally OK and less complex than you having to prove you have permission. Cnbrb (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Or watch this video about what VRTS (former OTRS) can do for you and your friend. Ciell (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyright images

I was wondering about how some things with copyright worked.

How would I go about searching for free licensed images on google? I see two categories, "Creative Commons license," and "Commercial and other license." Is there a specific search engine or certain websites I can use to find non-copyright images? Can I use images from a site as long as I give credit?

I also found some images on Flickr. Some of them stated that I could use the images as long as I gave credit to the person who took the picture, and provided a link to it. Would I be able to do this, where I put the link to the Flickr image in the description of the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LtLemonade (talk • contribs) 13:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You might think of copyrights as the photo owner's rights over the image (how and where it's posted, distributed, etc.) So, while it is important that credit is given, please note that simply crediting the person who took a picture is not always sufficient; it may depend on the purposes for which you are using the images. For example, if you are using an image for a presentation for school, it might qualify for a fair use exception, whereas if you were using the same image for commercial purposes, it likely would not qualify for a fair use exception. There are several sites that offer images that are considered "free for use", such as Pixabay and Unsplash. Please note that it is often best practice to cite from where images (and other information) were obtained, even if the images are considered free for use. Downeycortez (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@LtLemonade: Hi, and welcome. Please see en:WP:FIT and COM:F.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Minor addition

Under Section "Scope of licensing", I'm requesting an addition of the word "public artwork" for a section with reference to FOP, like this (underlined words indicate my proposed additions)

For a picture of a building or a public artwork (for example, monuments or murals), note that the architect or the artist may hold some rights if distinct architectural or artistic features are shown, but see also Commons:Freedom of panorama.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Help with Flickr images

Hi - I was wondering if someone could help me with Flickr licensing items. I thought I was following the rules with File:Doug McDermott Creighton.jpg and File:Oladipo Zeller.jpg (plus two crops of this pic). In each case it looked like the photo was fair use (in the case of McDermott without modifications and the other seemed to allow modifications), but it looks like a bot has scheduled them to be deleted. I am not interested in uploading photos that aren't fair use but would love some help on what to look for - obviously I misunderstood something. Can anyone help me understand what the issues were and how to avoid them in the future? Thanks in advance. Rikster2 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rikster2: According to the bot, they’re not fair use but use a more permissive CC BY-ND (Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs) license. However, not even that is allowed, see § Well-known licenses. (Fair use isn’t allowed either, by the way.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. The link is very helpful. Rikster2 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Can we link Commons:Village pump/Copyright here?

I think that Commons:Village pump/Copyright would be worth linking in see also section Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is "Forbidden licenses" a subsection of "Acceptable licenses"?

I would expect subsections of "Acceptable licenses" to describe different types of acceptable licenses, or perhaps some cases where a forbidden license appears at first to be acceptable. But "Forbidden licenses" doesn't seem to fall into these categories: it is a full discussion of forbidden licenses, and should be its own major section. Brianjd (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Agree - I believe that you're right. SV1XV (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Update external links

I have updated some of the external links, but some are still out of date. Please look for links to replace them or consider removing those links.--RToriCel (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

really own work?

I have doubts about the source/license of File:Matthias Euler-Rolle.jpg. what can i do? --94.216.250.89 13:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, You can nominate the file for deletion with your detailed arguments. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You could search for the image (and File:Sabine Johanna Wiedenhofer.png, their other upload) on the net. If the images have been previously published elsewhere, they need a VRT permission/confirmation. –LPfi (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Photos from family archive

What to do, if I upload photos, that are not my work, but I have all rights for that photos? For example my father photographed some educationally valuable pictures, he died years ago, and I am his heritor and want to upload these pictures. How to state this situation in file description?

(I am not asking for myself, I am asking for User:PavelKaras13, who is participant of Seniors write Wikipedia course on czech wikipedia that I lecture, and who has problems with these three photos tagged for deletion. He is not author (his father was), but he has full rights for that photos because his father died >0 <70 years ago and he is heritor.) Grtek lektor (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Grtek lektor: Hi,

PavelKaras13 should send a permission for a free license following the procedure at COM:VRT, mentioning that all relevant details to the copyright status of these files. The information sent will only be available to the volunteers dealing with these requests. This can be done in several languages. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The images were uploaded without a licensing tag, you could use {{PD-heirs}} and, of course, contact VRT as advised. SV1XV (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

1944 photographs from the RAF archive

Hello, a question for some copyright expert from the United Kingdom: this photograph was taken on 11 September 1944 at the Parc de Princes in Paris, France, by a Royal Air Force's photographer prior to a rugby union match between RAF RU team and Paris Universitaire FC. Can there safely apply {{PD-UKGov}}? Thanks -- Blackcat 10:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Blackcat: that seems reasonable and source webpage does have a Crown copyright notice that expired after 50 years. Ww2censor (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ww2censor, thank you. Since I am not experienced in the UK copyright customs, I needed to hear an informed voice. -- Blackcat 21:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ireland stamps

While for the time being this point is academic because An Post exists since 1984 so none of their stamps are over 70 years old, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ireland#Stamps shows that An Post is the copyright holder of the stamp copyright and not the artist. This statement is unsourced and I have not seen one of their contracts. I would presume such a contract would also cover the artwork as well as the stamps but I suspect that without a specific copyright transfer the artist is still the copyright holder. I'm interested in your opinion. Ww2censor (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

my logo image is my own and I want to create my own article

Hi, my name is Nicky Vaez. I'm a DJ composer. It won't let me create my article because, according to Wikipedia, it says that I'm copying from others and it's not like that because I created this own logo with a program. Nicky Vaez (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nicky Vaez: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a smaller (<50,000 bytes or <2,000,000 pixels) jpg logo as a new user, and Special:AbuseFilter/156 by trying to upload a smaller (<50,000 bytes) jpg logo as a new user. Each jpg logo you tried to upload is smaller, and you indicated it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a smaller logo, it is a copyright violation taken from the web. If you made the logos yourself, please upload the full-size originals of them per COM:HR, including EXIF metadata. If you did not make the logos, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept them, and have the copyright holder(s) license them on their official websites or social media or send the logos and permissions via OTRS with carbon copies to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the logos may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here (but not Spanish Wikipedia). If you change use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid filter 153.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 15:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-TXGov

Any help in sorting out Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-TXGov would be appreciated? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Which account to use for upload?

I expect to upload some photographs I took, and for which I hold the copyright, to Commons soon. I also expect to upload the photos to an external website. If I use my "Gerry Ashton" account, it will be evident to someone who looks at the external website that the Commons editor and the photographer on the external website is the same person. But I don't usually use this account, I usually use one that is more difficult to associate with me. On Wikipedia I list the "Gerry Ashton" account as "retired".

My concern is that if I use my usual account some bot will notice the photo on Commons is the same as the photo on the external site and make a fuss. What's the best way to deal with this? Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no automatic search for copyright problems as far as I'm aware, but a number Commons editors do seem somewhat bot-like in their efficiency. The best solution would be to use the same license on the external website that you use on Commons. The upload order makes a difference too: if the file was uploaded to Commons first, it cannot have been pirated from the external website. This only works if that website shows the upload date, obviously.

As to the header question: anyone can choose an account name that implies they're somebody else, so we don't give the account name a lot of credence in copyright questions. More important is an upload and edit history - users without such history are trusted less. Because of the latter, using the old account would make things simpler. --rimshot^talk 21:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I could edit the photo metadata before I upload it to the external site, and set the comments field to "photo by Gerry Ashton, who edits Wikimedia Commons using that name." As for the license on the external site, all it says is "© 2022 Civil Air Patrol. All rights reserved." There are no per-photo licenses. Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gerry Ashton: While taking photos for upload to that website, are you fulfilling your assigned duties as an employee of the US Federal Government? Does your contract with CAP mention copyright?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

All the members of the Civil Air Patrol are volunteers. There are a handful of paid employees, but they are not acting as members while they are "on the clock". There is no contract concerning copyright; CAP's permission to use member-created material on their websites is just implied. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gerry Ashton: Thus, please send permission via VRT.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)